Quote:
Originally Posted by raymor
He called it a "tragedy" that the court FAILED to "bring about redistributive
change". I could understand you agreeing with Obama, if you were
the type with socialist tendencies that would be fine. However, I'm not
sure why you're trying to say he doesn't want to "redistribute" your money
when he's said exactly that at least a dozen times. Since you're apparently
a TV watcher, I'm sure you've seen Obama say it many times, perhaps
most clearly when he said "I think when you spread the wealth around".
Agree with him or disagree, but it makes no sense to deny that's his
position when he so clearly says it is.
Actually instead of getting a four second sound bite from CNN or Fox
and letting them tell me what to think, I simply listened to Obama's interview.
Unlike Bush, Obama is a good speaker and he makes his meaning clear,
just as in Tennessee when he made it clear that he thought his bill
was unconstitutional but should be passed anyway so it would be on
the books for a few years before the court struck it down. The Koolaid
drinkers tried to play games and pretend he didn't mean what he said
then, too, but he makes his meaning quite clear when you listen
to him, his whole speech, rather than listening to CNN. I actually kind
of liked Obama until near the end of the primaries when he started
running radio ads in Texas. It was his own ads that made me realize
how damaging he will be. It was his radio ad that informed that that
he wanted to raise taxes on businesses and socialize health care.
|
Spreading the wealth around can be done in a captialistic system. You don't have to be socialist to accomplish that. at any rate, the USA is trending toward socialism, which is a positive thing, imo.